these men must be stopped... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/19/2004 12:14:37 PM · #26

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

But for the love of god, canâ��t someone just assassinate the bastards?!?

Now there's a compassionate idea from the compassionate party.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/19/2004 12:22:19 PM · #27

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As far as I'm concerned, let Jerry do his thing. He's an extremist. They exist on both sides. There are equally extreme liberals as well.

Who would you consider an extreme liberal?

YOU! (just kidding)

They are nothing more then a group of people organizing to legally fight for what they believe in. Although I do not agree with their beliefs, I would hate to live in a country where people were not allowed to request or push their government for change.

Be opposed to their beliefs, but not their process of fighting for their beliefs because Iâ��d bet there are people using the same process to fight for your beliefs and Iâ��m pretty sure you are thankful they are out there.

MadMordegon

08/19/2004 12:25:09 PM · #28

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
But for the love of god, canâ��t someone just assassinate the bastards?!?

Now there's a compassionate idea from the compassionate party.

Shit ya its compassionate! Think of all the poor humans that people like Falwell and Robbertson have misled and corrupted. All the minds closed off and locked down to so many ideas and thoughts. Itâ��s a horrible cycle of ignorance and close mindedness based on nothing real.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/19/2004 12:30:59 PM · #29

Originally posted by micknewton:

Brutal torture and killing has commonly been used to spread the disease known as religion.

...and brutal torture and killing has commonly been used to yank a fetus from it's mothers womb.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/19/2004 12:33:20 PM · #30

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I dunno, some of the anarchists that protest the G8 meetings by inciting riots.

FWIW, I think Falwell is a complete whackaloon. Maybe I'm more familiar with him because he scares me way more than any liberal.

08/19/2004 12:41:53 PM · #31

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
But for the love of god, canâ��t someone just assassinate the bastards?!?

Now there's a compassionate idea from the compassionate party.

Shit ya its compassionate! Think of all the poor humans that people like Falwell and Robbertson have misled and corrupted. All the minds closed off and locked down to so many ideas and thoughts. Itâ��s a horrible cycle of ignorance and close mindedness based on nothing real.

Think of all the poor humans that people like Michael Moore have misled and corrupted. All the minds closed off and locked down to so many ideas and thoughts. It's a horrible cycle of ignorance and close mindedness based on nothing real.

08/19/2004 12:59:59 PM · #32

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As far as I'm concerned, let Jerry do his thing. He's an extremist. They exist on both sides. There are equally extreme liberals as well.

Who would you consider an extreme liberal?

I dunno, some of the anarchists that protest the G8 meetings by inciting riots.

FWIW, I think Falwell is a complete whackaloon. Maybe I'm more familiar with him because he scares me way more than any liberal.

*** It's also possible that some of those riot inciting protesters at the G8 Summit a few years ago were plants to give the "movement" a bad name and to give the government there, and in other countries, reason to use extra police tactics to control protesters. The people protesting are peaceful and peace loving and do not believe in violence or destruction of property. Many came with their kids. But do you know of any liberal extremists trying to amass power in the same way that the Christian Right is doing? People in the left are in no way threats to the American way of life the way the Religious right is.

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 13:07:51.

08/19/2004 01:03:58 PM · #33

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As far as I'm concerned, let Jerry do his thing. He's an extremist. They exist on both sides. There are equally extreme liberals as well.

Who would you consider an extreme liberal?

YOU! (just kidding)

They are nothing more then a group of people organizing to legally fight for what they believe in. Although I do not agree with their beliefs, I would hate to live in a country where people were not allowed to request or push their government for change.

Be opposed to their beliefs, but not their process of fighting for their beliefs because Iâ��d bet there are people using the same process to fight for your beliefs and Iâ��m pretty sure you are thankful they are out there.

***I have to agree...lol But my extremism doesn't hold a candle to that of the Christian Right leaders.

They are nothing more then a group of people organizing to legally fight for what they believe in. Although I do not agree with their beliefs, I would hate to live in a country where people were not allowed to request or push their government for change.

Be opposed to their beliefs, but not their process of fighting for their beliefs because Iâ��d bet there are people using the same process to fight for your beliefs and Iâ��m pretty sure you are thankful they are out there. [/quote]

***I am not opposed to their rights for living life the way they choose, but when they try to change the government and the Constitution for religious purposes, well then that has to be looked at...and people have been looking at it and what they report is not good for democracy. The Christian Right leaders are people with lots of money and influence, both in government, media and with their fellow believers. For instance, Pat Robertson has a hugh media company that makes him huge amounts of money. The every day person does not have access to the media the way he's got, so they have much less influence on changing the course of our government.

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

The scary thing is that their are other Christian Right groups trying to bring about a theocracy in the US and their members include: Judge Anton Scalia (Supreme Court), Robert Mueller (FBI chief) who are members of Opus Dei, along with other members of the government. There are Reconstructionist groups (a very scary lot because they believe in THE word of the Bible)...and many other groups equally ambitious in pushing their agendas on the sleep walking rest of the country.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/19/2004 01:48:50 PM · #34

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***But my extremism doesn't hold a candle to that of the Christian Right leaders.

***I am not opposed to their rights for living life the way they choose, but when they try to change the government and the Constitution for religious purposes, well then that has to be looked at...and people have been looking at it and what they report is not good for democracy. The Christian Right leaders are people with lots of money and influence, both in government, media and with their fellow believers. For instance, Pat Robertson has a hugh media company that makes him huge amounts of money. The every day person does not have access to the media the way he's got, so they have much less influence on changing the course of our government.

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

The scary thing is that their are other Christian Right groups trying to bring about a theocracy in the US and their members include: Judge Anton Scalia (Supreme Court), Robert Mueller (FBI chief) who are members of Opus Dei, along with other members of the government. There are Reconstructionist groups (a very scary lot because they believe in THE word of the Bible)...and many other groups equally ambitious in pushing their agendas on the sleep walking rest of the country.

I have seldom seen such hypocritical thinking. To say
"when they try to change the government and the Constitution for religious purposes, well then that has to be looked at...and people have been looking at it and what they report is not good for democracy."
How can "Democracy" survive when people like you oppose the very principles upon which Democracy is based? Democracy is supposed to be a government representative "of the people". If a majority "of the people" want to make or change laws, and attempt to do so through the exercise of their rights of assembly, free speech, and redress, why would you oppose them, if you believe in "democracy". I find the argument that the exercise of those rights, only if their purpose doesn't coincide with yours, is "not good for democracy" to be absolutely ludicrous.
Congress passed the 18th ammendment to the Constitution ( Prohibition ). Lots of people complained. Congress passed the 21st ammendment, which repealed the 18th. Likewise, if enough members of Congress can be persuaded, the 1st ammendment can likewise be repealed. Unlikely, but not impossible. Scary, isn't it. But that's the way Democracy works. You can't have it both ways.

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 13:57:30.

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/19/2004 02:23:53 PM · #35

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 01:46:57.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/19/2004 02:41:38 PM · #36

is this thread about abortion, religion, freedom, or the legal process? ... i can't tell. nobody will stay on topic.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/19/2004 02:43:37 PM · #37

Originally posted by hopper:

is this thread about abortion, religion, freedom, or the legal process?

yes.

08/19/2004 03:04:45 PM · #38

It really is interesting to note that those who lean heavily toward the left tend to believe strongly in the First Amendment, but only when it serves their interests. As soon as it conflicts with their viewpoints, the First Amendment seems to fly out the window. Let's stop being so hypocritical and allow all people to exercise their rights, regardless of their position.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/19/2004 04:45:09 PM · #39

Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by micknewton:
Brutal torture and killing has commonly been used to spread the disease known as religion.

...and brutal torture and killing has commonly been used to yank a fetus from it's mothers womb.

I don't believe that too many fetuses are forced to suffer the usual forms of torture employed by religious fanatics. Burning a fetus at the stake can be very hard on the woman.

When was the last time Christians (like Mr. Falwell) burned people at the stake? I can recall the government burning Christians in Waco but not the other way around.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/19/2004 04:52:38 PM · #40

The few who know and exercise their rights and obligations, have always had to defend them against those who with differing interests and agendas. When Oluzi said "...pushing their agendas on the sleep walking rest of the country", he was, by my interpretation, talking about an organized abuse of the many who do not think (and act) for themselves.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/19/2004 05:13:01 PM · #41

Originally posted by zeuszen:

In another thread, speaking about the majority of Iraqis supporting the insurgents in Iraq, Spazmo990 said

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Not actively opposing the insurgents IS implied support. In other words, those Iraqis that do not take some action against the insurgents are tacitly expressing their support of the insurgents and their acts.

By that logic, the "sleep walking rest of the country" must be giving implied support to whoever is most successful in pushing their agenda. If the sleep walkers give implied support to the Christian Coalition and their agenda, then it would be unfair to call it "organized abuse".
( note: this is not MY position - I'm just demonstrating how, if you support the argment of implied support in one case, then you must support it in other similar cases - which you may not mean to do ).

Ron

08/19/2004 05:46:17 PM · #42

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***But my extremism doesn't hold a candle to that of the Christian Right leaders.

***I am not opposed to their rights for living life the way they choose, but when they try to change the government and the Constitution for religious purposes, well then that has to be looked at...and people have been looking at it and what they report is not good for democracy. The Christian Right leaders are people with lots of money and influence, both in government, media and with their fellow believers. For instance, Pat Robertson has a hugh media company that makes him huge amounts of money. The every day person does not have access to the media the way he's got, so they have much less influence on changing the course of our government.

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

The scary thing is that their are other Christian Right groups trying to bring about a theocracy in the US and their members include: Judge Anton Scalia (Supreme Court), Robert Mueller (FBI chief) who are members of Opus Dei, along with other members of the government. There are Reconstructionist groups (a very scary lot because they believe in THE word of the Bible)...and many other groups equally ambitious in pushing their agendas on the sleep walking rest of the country.

I have seldom seen such hypocritical thinking. To say
"when they try to change the government and the Constitution for religious purposes, well then that has to be looked at...and people have been looking at it and what they report is not good for democracy."
How can "Democracy" survive when people like you oppose the very principles upon which Democracy is based? Democracy is supposed to be a government representative "of the people". If a majority "of the people" want to make or change laws, and attempt to do so through the exercise of their rights of assembly, free speech, and redress, why would you oppose them, if you believe in "democracy". I find the argument that the exercise of those rights, only if their purpose doesn't coincide with yours, is "not good for democracy" to be absolutely ludicrous.
Congress passed the 18th ammendment to the Constitution ( Prohibition ). Lots of people complained. Congress passed the 21st ammendment, which repealed the 18th. Likewise, if enough members of Congress can be persuaded, the 1st ammendment can likewise be repealed. Unlikely, but not impossible. Scary, isn't it. But that's the way Democracy works. You can't have it both ways.

Ron

***What is the purpose of the Christian Right trying to take over the government anyway? That is an important question as to why religion has to have a say politically? Are there other religious groups in the US that are trying the same thing?

As far as the democratic question goes, the way I see it is that when the CR groups, and there are a number of them, have enormous finances, as well as, access to major media, as they do say with the Christian Broadcast network and other mass media outlets to spread the political gospel, and have access, because of the aforementioned, to the highest politicians of our country like no other groups do, except for big business, then I would hardly say that is democratic.

In addition, if a group wants to take over the machinery of government and change it's legal and political structures to further their own aims and goals as to the way people should live their lives, then I would hardly say that's democratic, as well.

Isn't there supposed to be seperation of church and state in the US? I think there is.

Once again in the US, what I see is that specialized groups, whether big business or big religion, are the citizens that count most to the politicians because they get enormous sums of money from them (eg. Pat Robertson is a big financial contributor to Bush), as well as, supplying these politicians with a ready made voting block, then the common person and masses don't have equal access or influence over the politics in this country.

This again is about a few people who have ambitions trying to collect ppower and finance for religious and personal gain.

So again, I will ask...what's the purpose of the Christian Right trying to access, and take over the government? What do they need the government for if they have god?

08/19/2004 05:55:57 PM · #43

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

In addition, if a group wants to take over the machinery of government and change it's legal and political structures to further their own aims and goals as to the way people should live their lives, then I would hardly say that's democratic, as well.

Isn't that exactly what the ACLU, NAACP and other so called civil rights groups do on a regular basis?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Isn't there supposed to be seperation of church and state in the US? I think there is.

No, although that is what the ACLU and other such groups have led you to believe... You should actually read the text of the amendment.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So again, I will ask...what's the purpose of the Christian Right trying to access, and take over the government? What do they need the government for if they have god?

The purpose is their own, just as every other group who seeks to change the political climate and structure of our government. Why is it that when it's the left, it is social/political reform and when it's the right, it's evil and unwanted. As I said earlier, there seems to be a double standard being applied here by the left. Every group, organization, etc., has the legal right to push their agendas, persuade the public and take whatever legal means are available to further their interests, whether from the left or the right. You can't be hypocritical about it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/19/2004 06:05:44 PM · #44

Originally posted by SoCal69:

***Not true, SoCal. It's when a specialized group wants to take over the machinery of government of the country, change it's laws and dictate how to live is when we have to be very alert to what they are trying to do. Perhaps you missed the Pat Robertson quote I posted above. There seems to be a concerted effort by the CR to change our government to a theocracy. I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to (as long as it doesn't impact on the rest negatively and doesn't impact on the structure of our form of government.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

08/19/2004 06:07:06 PM · #45

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
The few who know and exercise their rights and obligations, have always had to defend them against those who with differing interests and agendas. When Oluzi said "...pushing their agendas on the sleep walking rest of the country", he was, by my interpretation, talking about an organized abuse of the many who do not think (and act) for themselves.

In another thread, speaking about the majority of Iraqis supporting the insurgents in Iraq, Spazmo990 said
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not actively opposing the insurgents IS implied support. In other words, those Iraqis that do not take some action against the insurgents are tacitly expressing their support of the insurgents and their acts.

By that logic, the "sleep walking rest of the country" must be giving implied support to whoever is most successful in pushing their agenda. If the sleep walkers give implied support to the Christian Coalition and their agenda, then it would be unfair to call it "organized abuse".
( note: this is not MY position - I'm just demonstrating how, if you support the argment of implied support in one case, then you must support it in other similar cases - which you may not mean to do ).

Ron

I cannot speak for Spazmo. I do not speak about support, implied or otherwise.

I feel compassion for the sleep-walkers. I, certainly, would not dream of supporting actions derived from a regrettable state of ignorance. Any abuse should be ascribed to those who levy it, not to those who are compelled by it.

Plato's analogy of the cave comes to mind.

08/19/2004 06:13:02 PM · #46

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
It really is interesting to note that those who lean heavily toward the left tend to believe strongly in the First Amendment, but only when it serves their interests. As soon as it conflicts with their viewpoints, the First Amendment seems to fly out the window. Let's stop being so hypocritical and allow all people to exercise their rights, regardless of their position.

***Not true, SoCal. It's when a specialized group wants to take over the machinery of government of the country, change it's laws and dictate how to live is when we have to be very alert to what they are trying to do. Perhaps you missed the Pat Robertson quote I posted above. There seems to be a concerted effort by the CR to change our government to a theocracy. I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to (as long as it doesn't impact on the rest negatively and doesn't impact on the structure of our form of government.

All you have shown me is this group exercising their first amendment rights under the US Constitution. Regardless of what their underlying motives are, why is it deploreable to you that they are expressing themselves in the same manner as anyone else? Many things that many extreme left or right groups say or do can impact on our lives in a variety of ways, but you have not shown me anything more than an organization exercising its right to freedom of speech. Point out what it is they have done beyond exercising that right. Yes, we must be alert, but that holds true all the time, not just when dealing with the Christian right, but also with the ACLU, NAACP, and all other left and right extremist groups.

Message edited by author 2004-08-19 18:14:51.

08/19/2004 07:05:55 PM · #47

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
It really is interesting to note that those who lean heavily toward the left tend to believe strongly in the First Amendment, but only when it serves their interests. As soon as it conflicts with their viewpoints, the First Amendment seems to fly out the window. Let's stop being so hypocritical and allow all people to exercise their rights, regardless of their position.

***Not true, SoCal. It's when a specialized group wants to take over the machinery of government of the country, change it's laws and dictate how to live is when we have to be very alert to what they are trying to do. Perhaps you missed the Pat Robertson quote I posted above. There seems to be a concerted effort by the CR to change our government to a theocracy. I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to (as long as it doesn't impact on the rest negatively and doesn't impact on the structure of our form of government.

All you have shown me is this group exercising their first amendment rights under the US Constitution. Regardless of what their underlying motives are, why is it deploreable to you that they are expressing themselves in the same manner as anyone else? Many things that many extreme left or right groups say or do can impact on our lives in a variety of ways, but you have not shown me anything more than an organization exercising its right to freedom of speech. Point out what it is they have done beyond exercising that right. Yes, we must be alert, but that holds true all the time, not just when dealing with the Christian right, but also with the ACLU, NAACP, and all other left and right extremist groups.

***I would point you to the two web sites I posted above for a beginning to see what others are reporting. There are myriad web sites you can access by doing a google search for Christian Right. If it were just about freedom of speech I would not be concerned, but it doesn't seem to be about that.

If I don't answer any of your subsequent posts it's not because I am ignoring them, but have to leave for work which will take me away from my computer for a day or two and I don't have access to the internet there, but I will respond when I get back.

08/19/2004 07:27:19 PM · #48

I glanced at the websites, but sorry if I don't have the time or desire to read them. However, what is your point exactly?? Have they done something in contravention of law?? The mere fact that they have an agenda and have resources to pursue that agenda is not illegal nor improper. All groups, whether extremist or moderate, do the same thing. There seems to be 2 issues which bother you. First, that you take issue with their stated goals; and second, that they seem to have the resources and persuasion to possibly accomplish their goal. I personally do not agree with them, and I think you give them too much credit. However, it is their right to speak their mind and try to effect change according to their beliefs, just as you do, just as the ACLU does, just as Michael Moore does, etc., etc. You still have shown me nothing more than an organization exercising its rights under the first amendment.

As for this statement of yours (emphasis yours):

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm all for the people of this country having their first amendment rights and being able to live life the way they want to...

Are you telling me it is your belief that only individual people have the right to free speech?? Surely you don't believe that to be true. If that is the case, are you saying you condone the elimination of all newspapers, magazines, T.V. Broadcasts, etc. All of them present editorials, analysis, opinion, etc. Similarly, all organizations would be prohibited from presenting their opinions and views, including the political parties, charitable, religious and civil rights organizations. You really should consider the impact of the statements you make across the spectrum. The world is not so black and white, and there are many nuances to consider. If you just make such blanket statements based strictly on your emotional reaction to an issue and without thinking through it, you are no better than those you are condemning.